T.M.S.:"Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

bungle_jr:T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!

If criminals are going to break laws anyways, why bother having laws, right?

LasersHurt:You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.

HeadLever:LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.

*rolleseyes*

I'm down, then. If the poor nomenclature is such a sticking point, let's change it and get to work.

So he used an assault rifle to kill people. Ok, that follows. What is with the constant media coverage here? This sensationalises the murders and basically gives a highscore and a come on to try better to every other nutter with a gun out there.

Besides which, even someone like myself who lives in the UK can easily understand that the weapon is ambivalent here; it didn't aim itself then pull it's own trigger. Someone had to do that to make it fire. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

I don't get the whole gun ownership thing (not American after all) but even I understand that you can't legislate for the random fruitloop going crazy... because they're random fruitloops. But the media could do a lot more to make such occurrences well 'boring' ya know?

AR-15? Isn't that the civilian version of the M-16 the rifle issued to most of America's armed forces? I'd have thought they'd of been pretty easy to get.... in America.

thurstonxhowell:Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.

The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

Assault weapon is a a term established by law. It's a good term for military type weapons that includes assault weapons and things like sub-machineguns and combat shotguns that wouldn't normally be considered assault rifles.